- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:35:05 +0100
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- CC: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
OK, I think we can point out that other approaches are possible. I suppose I took that as read. Odd that SOAP is the protocol raised because that *is* fundamentally HTTP-based. #g On 25/06/2012 12:17, Paul Groth wrote: > Hi Graham, > > We had some requests from implementers to see if there was a way to > allow for something like SOAP or other protocol to be used with the > service description other than http. Note, I don't think we have to > define it just say something about how this could be done. Yes, the > focus is clearly http but the idea would be to leave the door open to > such other protocols. > > Paul > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Graham Klyne<GK@ninebynine.org> wrote: >> Yes, if non-HTTP URIs are used. But the focus of this document was, from the >> outset, intended to focus on using HTTP. >> >> To say more, I'd need to understand exactly what is being requested here. >> >> #g >> -- >> >> On 23/06/2012 20:04, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>> ISSUE-433: Can the protocol be decoupled from the service definition in prov-aq >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/433 >>> >>> Raised by: >>> On product: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > >
Received on Monday, 25 June 2012 21:47:58 UTC